Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 12:39 UTC

guanguans / notify

Push notification SDK(AnPush、Bark、Chanify、DingTalk、Discord、Gitter、GoogleChat、IGot、Lark、Mattermost、MicrosoftTeams、NowPush、Ntfy、Push、Pushback、PushBullet、PushDeer、PushMe、Pushover、PushPlus、QQ、RocketChat、ServerChan、ShowdocPush、SimplePush、Slack、Telegram、WeWork、WPush、XiZhi、YiFengChuanHua、ZohoCliq、Zulip).

PHPMIT★ 686 stars⑂ 43 forkssince May 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#bark#notification#push#dingtalk#discord#gitter#googlechat#lark#mattermost#microsoftteams#ntfy#pushback#pushover#qq#rocketchat#slack#telegram#wework#zulip#zohocliq

guanguans/notify holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
overall / 100
Excellent

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

83
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

guanguansPersonal account
612 followers66 public repossince Sep 2016

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Packagistguanguans/notify5.2.02,855144107 days agosdknotificationbotpushnotifynotifierpushoverqqslackpushbulletgittertelegramdiscorddingtalkmattermostsimplepushlarkweworkrocketchatzulipbarkchanifyserverchanxizhintfygooglechatpushpluspushbackigotpushdeermicrosoftteamsnowpushshowdocpushyifengchuanhuaanpushwpushpushmenotifyxzohocliqzohocliqwebhook

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 136 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year136
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 107 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag5.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release107
mean_days_between_releases14.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

68Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate
How it's scored
46/60Stars — 686 stars
13.5/25Forks — 43 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks43
stars686
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

52Moderate
How it's scored
46.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,855 downloads/month across packagist
6.4/20Registry dependents — 8 packages depend on it
Inputs used
packagesguanguans/notify
dependents8
ecosystemspackagist
total_downloads115,486
monthly_downloads2,855
unverified_packages_excluded—

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

67Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 80% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.801

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.8/30PR acceptance — 164/165 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs164
open_issues0
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

69Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20/25Owner reach — 612 followers of guanguans
25/25Track record — 66 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers612
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginguanguans
public_repos66
account_age_days3,585
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on packagist
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 107 days ago
20/20Version history — 144 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesguanguans/notify
ecosystemspackagist
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish107

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbark, notification, push, dingtalk, discord, gitter, googlechat, lark, mattermost, microsoftteams, ntfy, pushback, pushover, qq, rocketchat, slack, telegram, wework, zulip, zohocliq
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
2.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

33At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

48Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .php-cs-fixer.dist.php
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/269 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes20,805
source_files_sampled269
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

686GitHub stars
5contributors
136commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Packagistpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-07-15 12:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle^7.10composer.json
Packagistguzzlehttp/uri-template^1.0composer.json
Packagistpsr/simple-cache^1.0 || ^2.0 || ^3.0composer.json
Packagistsymfony/options-resolver^7.4 || ^8.0composer.json
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 64 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Packagistguzzlehttp/guzzle—direct
Packagistguzzlehttp/uri-template—direct
Packagistpsr/simple-cache—direct
Packagistsymfony/options-resolver—direct
Packagistadamwojs/php-cs-fixer-phpdoc-force-fqcn—indirect
Packagistbamarni/composer-bin-plugin—indirect
Packagistbrainmaestro/composer-git-hooks—indirect
Packagistcomposer/composer—indirect
Packagistergebnis/composer-normalize—indirect
Packagistergebnis/license—indirect
Packagistergebnis/php-cs-fixer-config—indirect
Packagistergebnis/phpstan-rules—indirect
Packagistergebnis/rector-rules—indirect
Packagistext-simplexml—indirect
Packagistfakerphp/faker—indirect
Packagistguanguans/monorepo-builder-worker—indirect
Packagistguanguans/php-cs-fixer-custom-fixers—indirect
Packagistguanguans/phpstan-rules—indirect
Packagistguanguans/rector-rules—indirect
Packagistilluminate/support—indirect
Packagistjbelien/phpstan-sarif-formatter—indirect
Packagistmockery/mockery—indirect
Packagistmrpunyapal/peststan—indirect
Packagistmrpunyapal/rector-pest—indirect
Packagistnette/utils—indirect
Packagistnicksdot/phpstan-phpstorm-error-identifiers—indirect
Packagistpeckphp/peck—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest—indirect
Packagistpestphp/pest-plugin-arch—indirect
Packagistphp—indirect
Packagistphp-mock/php-mock-phpunit—indirect
Packagistphpbench/phpbench—indirect
Packagistphpstan/extension-installer—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-deprecation-rules—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-mockery—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-strict-rules—indirect
Packagistphpstan/phpstan-webmozart-assert—indirect
Packagistphpunit/phpunit—indirect
Packagistpovils/phpmnd—indirect
Packagistrector/argtyper—indirect
Packagistrector/jack—indirect
Packagistrector/swiss-knife—indirect
Packagistrector/type-perfect—indirect
Packagistroave/backward-compatibility-check—indirect
Packagistroave/no-floaters—indirect
Packagistshipmonk/composer-dependency-analyser—indirect
Packagistshipmonk/dead-code-detector—indirect
Packagistshipmonk/name-collision-detector—indirect
Packagistshipmonk/phpstan-baseline-per-identifier—indirect
Packagistshipmonk/phpstan-rules—indirect
Packagistsidz/phpstan-rules—indirect
Packagistspatie/invade—indirect
Packagistspaze/phpstan-disallowed-calls—indirect
Packagiststaabm/annotate-pull-request-from-checkstyle—indirect
Packagiststaabm/phpstan-todo-by—indirect
Packagiststaabm/side-effects-detector—indirect
Packagistsymfony/thanks—indirect
Packagistsymfony/var-dumper—indirect
Packagistsymplify/coding-standard—indirect
Packagistsymplify/easy-coding-standard—indirect
Packagistsymplify/phpstan-rules—indirect
Packagistsymplify/rule-doc-generator—indirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/class-leak—indirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/cognitive-complexity—indirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/ctor—indirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/type-coverage—indirect
Packagisttomasvotruba/unused-public—indirect
Packagistyamadashy/phpstan-friendly-formatter—indirect
Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with guanguans/notify. Read them side by side →

94langbot-app/LangBotProduction-grade platform for building agentic IM bots - 生产级多平台智能机器人开发平台/ Agent、知识库编排、插件系统 / Bots for Discord / Slack / LINE / Telegram / WeChat(企业微信, 企微智能机器人, 公众号) / 飞书 / 钉钉 / QQ / Matrix e.g. Integrated with ChatGPT(GPT), DeepSeek, Dify, n8n, Langflow, Coze, Claude, Gemini, GLM, Ollama, SiliconFlow, Moonshot, openclaw / hermes agent, deerflowExceptional91caronc/appriseApprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!Excellent96vercel/chatA unified TypeScript SDK for building chat bots across Slack, Microsoft Teams, Google Chat, Discord, and more.Exceptional96AstrBotDevs/AstrBotAI Agent Assistant & development framework that integrates lots of IM platforms, LLMs, plugins and AI feature, and can be your openclaw alternative. ✨Exceptional98line/line-bot-sdk-phpLINE Messaging API SDK for PHPExceptional98slackapi/bolt-jsA framework to build Slack apps using JavaScriptExceptional

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist.